UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERETTA TROY HOOKS, a/k/a Memphis, a/k/a B.T.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00119-REP-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 11, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel P. Simpson, V, MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLLP, Henrico,
Virginia, for Appellant. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Beretta Troy Hooks appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve
months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. ∗ Counsel questions,
however, whether Hooks received a reasonable sentence. Hooks
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Based upon the Grade C supervised release violations
and Hooks’ criminal history category of IV, the advisory
guidelines range was six to twelve months of incarceration. The
district court sentenced Hooks to twelve months, the top of the
advisory sentencing guidelines range. Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently
considered the statutory factors and explained its reasons for
imposing the twelve-month sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,
546-47 (4th Cir. 2010). We therefore find that the sentence
∗
Hooks’ counsel suggests that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal in light of the waiver-of-appellate-rights
provision in the plea agreement. Because the Government has not
sought enforcement of the waiver, we may conduct our review
pursuant to Anders. United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263,
271 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly
unreasonable. See Thompson, 595 F.3d at 546-47 (providing
standard); see also United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294
(4th Cir. 2008) (“In applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’
standard, we first determine, using the instructions given in
Gall, whether a sentence is ‘unreasonable.’”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. This court
requires that counsel inform Hooks, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Hooks requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hooks. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3